Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

rack 'em up

Thanks for the link. Another missed opportunity to lay out more of the defense. I am curious as to what this means "There’s a prison of nonclosure because the way that the investigators and prosecutors conducted themselves was wrong and has never been brought to light or acknowledged. I want them held accountable for the mistakes they made. I want it understood what they have done in this case, not just because of how it affected me but because unless they are held accountable, they can do this again and again and again."

Her words seem lucid to me, pehaps because I have made a similar argument many times myself. If the police (including the forensic police) are allowed to get away with all of the stunts they have pulled, they will surely rack up more false convictions on a regular basis.

 

[Grinder]

Her words seem lucid to me, pehaps because I have made a similar argument many times myself. If the police (including the forensic police) are allowed to get away with all of the stunts they have pulled, they will surely rack up more false convictions on a regular basis.

What are the things to be clarified? Why isn't she specific about the case? Why talk about prison life?

They need to articulate exactly what is wrong with the prosecution's case. Point out that nothing matches rather is only compatible with the exception of DNA which was declared bogus by court appointed independent experts.

They aren't her words and they may be lucid but with no power or weight.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lack of specifics

Grinder,

OK, you are looking for her to be specific, and she wasn't. She also failed to use the word circumstantially correctly. Points taken, and I am at least partially in agreement with them. However, I had a conversation with a family member about the case recently, and she was unaware that there was even someone in prison for the murder. I think many who follow the case only very casually are where my family member is. That is why she needs to bring up Rudy.

 

[JREF2010]

What she should be saying is that there is no evidence of me in the room and the only evidence against Raf is a tiny amount of DNA on the bra clasp that was mishandled and left uncollected for almost two months, during which the area where it was found wasn't treated as CSI site.

theres also the disturbing Stefonani who applys different rules within her results.
the DNA RFU peaks, she sometimes asccepts below 50 and on other items she ignores the peaks....she is unfair and inconsistent for doing that.

"Taking peaks below 50 RFU into consideration, it appears that 4 other males besides Raffaele are present" on the bra clasp.
Is this enough to prove contamination?
Or are the polizia and Migninni Muppets seeking the other sex orgy murderers, maybe now they will need to arrest 4 more people and maybe induce 5 or 6 knives into their case with a Motivation of "there is no motivation!" motivation...

 

[moije2]

What are the things to be clarified? Why isn't she specific about the case? Why talk about prison life?

They need to articulate exactly what is wrong with the prosecution's case. Point out that nothing matches rather is only compatible with the exception of DNA which was declared bogus by court appointed independent experts.

They aren't her words and they may be lucid but with no power or weight.

Wow. All of this is powerful enough to bring me out of my shell. Grinder, whose agenda do we have here? I have much enjoyed your perspectives in this case, but I thought that interview was one of the most powerful pieces I have read in ages. Powerful in allowing insight into her life as a person. It may be nice (for someone) to have this image of a young woman relatively unaffected by her tragedy, and a seemingly strong personality to survive all of that intact. But that interview put a human face to her life. Yes, it struck me peculiar the talk about evidence re conspirators. But such a minor detail in the overpowering message of a girl victimized by others. And this coincides with similar messages that I have read from Raffaele about his difficulties in life.

True, you may like to manage for them the messages that go to the public. But can't there be more than two agendas? Send a message of innocence, and at the same time put a human face to her? You don't think this can also be helpful to her case? (Which appears to be the agenda you were addressing). And if she was ever Waiting to Be Heard, geez Louise I would think that interview is a scream to be heard.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow. All of this is powerful enough to bring me out of my shell. Grinder, whose agenda do we have here? I have much enjoyed your perspectives in this case, but I thought that interview was one of the most powerful pieces I have read in ages. Powerful in allowing insight into her life as a person. It may be nice (for someone) to have this image of a young woman relatively unaffected by her tragedy, and a seemingly strong personality to survive all of that intact. But that interview put a human face to her life. Yes, it struck me peculiar the talk about evidence re conspirators. But such a minor detail in the overpowering message of a girl victimized by others. And this coincides with similar messages that I have read from Raffaele about his difficulties in life.

True, you may like to manage for them the messages that go to the public. But can't there be more than two agendas? Send a message of innocence, and at the same time put a human face to her? You don't think this can also be helpful to her case? (Which appears to be the agenda you were addressing). And if she was ever Waiting to Be Heard, geez Louise I would think that interview is a scream to be heard.

Great post! What moije2 said.

 

[davefoc]

Thanks for the link. Another missed opportunity to lay out more of the defense. I am curious as to what this means "There’s a prison of nonclosure because the way that the investigators and prosecutors conducted themselves was wrong and has never been brought to light or acknowledged. I want them held accountable for the mistakes they made. I want it understood what they have done in this case, not just because of how it affected me but because unless they are held accountable, they can do this again and again and again."

At this time she needs to show what was wrong with the case and do as much as she can to show she is innocent. People that think she is guilty will only be pleased that she is suffering.

This seemed odd - It’s conspicuous how easy Rudy Guede got off, considering the evidence against him. It’s conspicuous how his versions of what happened have changed over time to divert attention and responsibility away from him and onto Raffaele and me. It’s conspicuous that despite his history of being armed and breaking into people’s houses, he was still able to walk the street without a care. How is that possible? The police knew about these incidents, yet never prosecuted him.

Odd use of conspicuous -

ETA - "How can there be a conspiracy of three people when one person’s evidence is clear and non-negotiable and two others’ are unclear, complicated and circumstantial? How is that possible?"

I must say that quote is goofy. Is she really that dense? Of course there could be a conspiracy and no evidence at the crime save for that of one. A quick example would be Charles Manson.

How can she be so inarticulate this late in the game? Why would she say complicated and circumstantial. The evidence against Rudy is circumstantial. What she should be saying is that there is no evidence of me in the room and the only evidence against Raf is a tiny amount of DNA on the bra clasp that was mishandled and left uncollected for almost two months, during which the area where it was found wasn't treated as CSI site.

Mostly I think this is an area where you and I will just disagree. I didn't even agree that the quote was that goofy. I agree it might have been more clear, but I just took it as somebody expressing reasonable incredulity over the idea that she and Rafaele were prosecuted based on virtually no evidence while the evidence against their alleged co-conspirator was so overwhelming.

I have been involved in several long term discussions over the years since I began participating in the JREF forum and the one thing they all have in common is the tendency to devolve into minutia. It would be very difficult for Knox to respond to that kind of minutia in any kind of public forum and come out looking normal. If she responds in kind with highly esoteric responses she will come off looking like some kind of weird geek that a guilter will interpret as evidence that she was weird enough to commit this crime. If she doesn't respond in kind it will look like the guilter arguments are going unanswered and she will be judged guilty because of that.

I think her approach of only mentioning the top level arguments that support her innocence and other wise avoiding a discussion of the evidence is the right one. She is fortunate that she has paid lawyers and a sea of volunteer experts that can argue her side and I think she should leave the detailed discussion of her case to them.

Having said the above, I don't disagree that she could be a bit more articulate and she could make the fact that there is overwhelming evidence against Guede part of her public interview responses.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

OK, you are looking for her to be specific, and she wasn't. She also failed to use the word circumstantially correctly. Points taken, and I am at least partially in agreement with them. However, I had a conversation with a family member about the case recently, and she was unaware that there was even someone in prison for the murder. I think many who follow the case only very casually are where my family member is. That is why she needs to bring up Rudy.

No problem for her bringing up Rudy, in fact I think that was the best part. talking about him being able to accuse and not be crossed, etc,

theres also the disturbing Stefonani who applys different rules within her results.
the DNA RFU peaks, she sometimes asccepts below 50 and on other items she ignores the peaks....she is unfair and inconsistent for doing that.

"Taking peaks below 50 RFU into consideration, it appears that 4 other males besides Raffaele are present" on the bra clasp.
Is this enough to prove contamination?
Or are the polizia and Migninni Muppets seeking the other sex orgy murderers, maybe now they will need to arrest 4 more people and maybe induce 5 or 6 knives into their case with a Motivation of "there is no motivation!" motivation...

Of course I agree but think the message needs to simplified. No RFU talk from Amanda. She should keep repeating that the independent experts selected by the judge agreed with the defense experts that the forensics were bogus. That's the independent experts from the universtity in Rome.

Wow. All of this is powerful enough to bring me out of my shell. Grinder, whose agenda do we have here? I have much enjoyed your perspectives in this case, but I thought that interview was one of the most powerful pieces I have read in ages. Powerful in allowing insight into her life as a person. It may be nice (for someone) to have this image of a young woman relatively unaffected by her tragedy, and a seemingly strong personality to survive all of that intact. But that interview put a human face to her life. Yes, it struck me peculiar the talk about evidence re conspirators. But such a minor detail in the overpowering message of a girl victimized by others. And this coincides with similar messages that I have read from Raffaele about his difficulties in life.

True, you may like to manage for them the messages that go to the public. But can't there be more than two agendas? Send a message of innocence, and at the same time put a human face to her? You don't think this can also be helpful to her case? (Which appears to be the agenda you were addressing). And if she was ever Waiting to Be Heard, geez Louise I would think that interview is a scream to be heard.

As stated here for some time, the agenda I have is to post about what messages I think they should be pushing. Of course I could be dead wrong.e

I don't think humanizing her time in prison does anything to shape opinion about whether she is guilty or innocent.

I think almost all the interviews in the last months have been about her aqnd not about the case. I think that there is quite a chance she will be convicted and it is crucial to inform people about the bad prosecution.

I admit that I'm not very interested in her in a personal way. I'm interested in the case and hope she will avoid further jail time.

I haven't seen her or Raf use their positions to explain why the case is bogus using any specifics.

Mostly I think this is an area where you and I will just disagree. I didn't even agree that the quote was that goofy. I agree it might have been more clear, but I just took it as somebody expressing reasonable incredulity over the idea that she and Rafaele were prosecuted based on virtually no evidence while the evidence against their alleged co-conspirator was so overwhelming.

Fine.

I have been involved in several long term discussions over the years since I began participating in the JREF forum and the one thing they all have in common is the tendency to devolve into minutia. It would be very difficult for Knox to respond to that kind of minutia in any kind of public forum and come out looking normal. If she responds in kind with highly esoteric responses she will come off looking like some kind of weird geek that a guilter will interpret as evidence that she was weird enough to commit this crime. If she doesn't respond in kind it will look like the guilter arguments are going unanswered and she will be judged guilty because of that.

I really don't know that I get what you mean here. I think saying that the only evidence putting her in the murder room was thrown out by the independent experts is esoteric or minutia. Telling the audience that police told her that PL was the killer and she signed the statement because she was told it would help get the killer isn't minutia.

The case will be summarized by Barbie and Vogt. When will they have a chance to lay out the facts. Maybe Amanda can get a show on Fox going over the case every Sunday.

I think her approach of only mentioning the top level arguments that support her innocence and other wise avoiding a discussion of the evidence is the right one. She is fortunate that she has paid lawyers and a sea of volunteer experts that can argue her side and I think she should leave the detailed discussion of her case to them.

Having said the above, I don't disagree that she could be a bit more articulate and she could make the fact that there is overwhelming evidence against Guede part of her public interview responses.

I don't see that she talked about "top level" arguments. To me she did what you said you didn't want her doing. Talking about generalities rather than specifics seem an error.

Maybe we will have an orchestrated media blitz during the trial detailing the prosecution's errors

 

[JREF2010]

Of course I agree but think the message needs to simplified. No RFU talk from Amanda. She should keep repeating that the independent experts selected by the judge agreed with the defense experts that the forensics were bogus. That's the independent experts from the universtity in Rome.

I know what you mean on that point. It's frustrating at times that they cant defend the details, if not maybe better to be silent... reminds me of the Prison Diary writing, why did the lawyers not tell both of them "do not write diaries!". But how does a normal 20+ student, with no experience with Polizia and Prosecutors like Migninni, not to add in media blitz, not to imagine being falsely accused, deal with it all to appease everyone?

I think in Amandas book she repeated a regret for not speaking up for Patrick more, but the lawyers suggested not doing it ( I cant quote the page), and the lawyers recommended not pushing the Kerchers to talk to her or hear her.

What do you think about her not being in court?
Maresca wants to slander her for not being there, and some would definitely never go back to Italy, ever.

 

[RandyN]

It is unfair to discuss AK recent interview with Bob Graham without considering the interviewer who often (usually) leads the discussion. And IMO Graham lowered himself to the level of the typical tabloid writer in this particular interview. He did a bang up job somewhere in line with the quality usually afforded us by a Vogt or a Nadeau.

As for the misuse of the word conspicuous...I am quite certain that anyone of average intelligence understood that she meant to use the word suspicious. I have been interviewed several times and I must say that I never felt that a reporter ever got close to the real idea of what I wanted to say. Graham should have caught this at the time and clairified the usage...as for Knox...I fully understand trying to think and speak and hitting a near word like conspicuous and then simply saying it a couple of times without the extra thought necessary to catch and correct the error. Frankly this is nib hitting (plus s to hitting).

Look she is not perfect but it is the reporters job to get the story. And Bob Graham damn well knows what the story is here and yet he fails miserably. Why no follow up questions about the Guede non cross-exam situation? This is a fundamental error which the ISC should have ruled against but instead they ignore that and in fact rule the exact opposite as it were...somehow Guedes trial confirmed multiple attackers when no such evidence was presented and or crossed by these two defendants AK and RS.

This is a huge story in itself! Legal analysts the world over should be discussing the SC decision to use Guedes trial against AK and RS. And they did this while ignoring the fact that in the appeal trial of K and S the prosecution was not containing its information to the matter of the jail house snitches but in fact read a letter for Guede because he apparently could not read it himself! And it is notable that it was Zanetti who questioned Guede why he could not read this himself and not the defense who asked this key question. And then we all understood including the two judges and the jurors exactly what game Mignini has been playing all along. This is the dynamite bit that should blow this wrongful conviction out of the water. Graham knows it and yet he lowers himself to the level of the typical tabloid writer....I'm surprised he didn't get in a Foxy Knoxy.

I think Amanda and Raffaelle have shown themselves to both be intelligent people. Inexperienced in interviewing...and why would they be? A few rounds of the media circus does not an expert make.

Personally I would not do any interviews without being presented a written list of questions first. If they refuse then screw it... Given time to see the direction and the flow the interview might take allows one to steer it onto the topics that NEED put out there. Like the jail crap...Im betting Graham brought that up and so what should Knox do?

I agree it is past time for some reporter to do the real story here. Knox is angry and Raffaele is afraid (since he is stuck in this backward country) that this sham of police and prosecutor and judiciary will go unchallenged and unpunished. Unfortunately I have no doubt in my mind that they will get away perfectly clear. Theses Italians are shameless. Professionals come into court and lie and even contradict themselves without even blinking. They demand retesting of the knife but no one points out that they earlier objected to this exact thing! It seems clear to me that a defense lawyer would be well within his rights and in fact it is his or her job to point this out by asking questions about this exact thing. Why did you object? Why do you now demand? Doesn't that seem like simply taking another kick at the can???.... or some other understandable Italian metaphor.

This new appeal trial should demand testimony from Guede. It should demand a special review by the SC regarding two things. One is the illogical and unprecedented situation where the court expects to use the decision of another court in regards to another matter and one in which the second set of defendants don't get to participate in the first guys trial. The second review concerns the prosecution presenting Guede at the appeal and going beyond the agreed upon scope and even the prosecutor himself reading this travesty in court but then the judge failing to allow the defendants who were wrongly accused to cross this dirty rotten liar? Impossible!

These two things in the world media is more than enough to reveal exactly what the Italian courts are all about. Why they have the most violations for failing to put on a fair trial. Why the world should be concerned about travel or business in Italy.

You would have to be a damn fool to want to do business with anyone in Italy. And travel there could be as risky as travel to Iran...maybe worse.

Remember this is the country that arrested its own scientists and put them on trial for failing to predict earthquakes...and even today they try to make that appear logical and sane and fair. When it can never be anything but wooo to the 100th power.

 

[RWVBWL]

Was Curatolo even there?

I'm curious about something,
maybe some of you who have been following this case for years can clue me in...

Did anyone see Antonio 'Toto' Curatolo hangin' out at the basketball court the night Miss Kercher was murdered?

Rudy Guede,
in his German Prison Diary writes that after leaving Meredith, there were people out+about, even playing ball. Why mention that? Maybe people saw him?

There were a lot of people in
the street, in Piazza Grimana. There were some guys still
playing basketball even though it was dark.

Guede surely must have played on that basketball court many a time.
As Curatolo was a local fixture, so to say, I'd give a guess that Rudy must have seen the bum there before.

But yet he makes no mention of seeing the Park Bench Dweller,
nor the Halloween masks or people still dressed up in costumes.
I wonder why?


Did anyone state in court that they were 100% positive they saw Antonio Curatolo even there that night at the basketball court?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

RVWBWL, Good question about Curatolo, but did he not always hang out there?

 

[Grinder]

I'm curious about something,
maybe some of you who have been following this case for years can clue me in...

Did anyone see Antonio 'Toto' Curatolo hangin' out at the basketball court the night Miss Kercher was murdered?

Rudy Guede,
in his German Prison Diary writes that after leaving Meredith, there were people out+about, even playing ball. Why mention that? Maybe people saw him?

Guede surely must have played on that basketball court many a time.
As Curatolo was a local fixture, so to say, I'd give a guess that Rudy must have seen the bum there before.

But yet he makes no mention of seeing the Park Bench Dweller,
nor the Halloween masks or people still dressed up in costumes.
I wonder why?

Did anyone state in court that they were 100% positive they saw Antonio Curatolo even there that night at the basketball court?

My recollection is that the kiosk owner/operator said Curatolo was there that night, but it was more of a "he was there every night' during that period.

It is amazing that something as unusual as a couple being in the plaza of horrors as described by Briars (drug dealers, et al. ) wasn't noticed by the aforementioned kiosk owner or some of costumed partiers desperately looking for a disco bus. Not one normal person or video surveillance camera saw them. Amazing.

 

[Briars]

My recollection is that the kiosk owner/operator said Curatolo was there that night, but it was more of a "he was there every night' during that period.

It is amazing that something as unusual as a couple being in the plaza of horrors as described by Briars (drug dealers, et al. ) wasn't noticed by the aforementioned kiosk owner or some of costumed partiers desperately looking for a disco bus. Not one normal person or video surveillance camera saw them. Amazing.

The kiosk opened just after 6:30 a.m what time do you think she closed?

 

[Dan O.]

The kiosk opened just after 6:30 a.m what time do you think she closed?

After the disco busses left of course.

Wouldn't that information have been in her testimony?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The kiosk opened just after 6:30 a.m what time do you think she closed?

I wonder if anyone asked if they saw Amanda around that time as well. What time was it, she was waiting outside the store?

 

[Briars]

I wonder if anyone asked if they saw Amanda around that time as well. What time was it, she was waiting outside the store?

Sometime before 8 she was seen at Conads. The kiosk in Grimana faces away from the rail and bench. It has side panels if they are up then none of that area to to side or back would be visible.There is a photo on .org taken at 11.13 Sat Nov 7 with the kiosk closed up tight and students getting on the disco bus near by . There is also a stairwell to get down to the cottage behind the court far from the kiosk I am not clear how the Kiosk operates but it way be that visibility is limited to the opening in the front in the early morning or later evening , or it may be possible the side panels are never open.

 

[Dan O.]

I wonder if anyone asked if they saw Amanda around that time as well. What time was it, she was waiting outside the store?

Why do you have to wonder when testimony was given that the police went around with photos of Amanda and Raffaele asking if they had been seen. This is standard police work yet you stick to some bizaar belief that a heroin addict that conjures up what the police want to hear months after the fact trumps what he told the police in the immediate aftermath of the murder.

 

[Grinder]

I wonder if anyone asked if they saw Amanda around that time as well. What time was it, she was waiting outside the store?

No one saw her anywhere between 8:45 pm and 1 pm the next day

Sometime before 8 she was seen at Conads. The kiosk in Grimana faces away from the rail and bench. It has side panels if they are up then none of that area to to side or back would be visible.There is a photo on .org taken at 11.13 Sat Nov 7 with the kiosk closed up tight and students getting on the disco bus near by . There is also a stairwell to get down to the cottage behind the court far from the kiosk I am not clear how the Kiosk operates but it way be that visibility is limited to the opening in the front in the early morning or later evening , or it may be possible the side panels are never open.

Well in Italy one need not actually see what one testifies to seeing, which is clear from Curatolo, Nara, Quintavalle and the guy that saw Amanda (wearing the red coat she didn't own), Raf and Rudy together. Go check Massei on the kiosk operator testifying to the disco bus schedule.

Why do you have to wonder when testimony was given that the police went around with photos of Amanda and Raffaele asking if they had been seen. This is standard police work yet you stick to some bizaar belief that a heroin addict that conjures up what the police want to hear months after the fact trumps what he told the police in the immediate aftermath of the murder.

As I said earlier, these guys give us the opportunity to once again detail why the witnesses are not credible and shouldn't have been allowed to testify. As Randy might say: Why weren't they prosecuted for lying to the cops at first or lying later in court?

He stated that the bench where he was placed is the one close to the newspaper kiosk. He added that that evening the area was lit and he remained sitting on the bench until he could see the buses that drive students to the disco.

Rosignoli just mentioned is also important in another respect. Mr. Rosignoli, who runs the kiosk in Piazza Grimana held that in fact in that that period Antonio Curatolo used to frequent that area. A similar statement was made by Alessia Ceccarelli, also occupied in the management of the kiosk. Alessia Ceccarelli therefore reported she knew Mr. Curatolo and she specified that at that time he was placed on the bench next to her kiosk. She added that when she opened the kiosk on November 2 2007 Curatolo was there (statements by Alessia Ceccarelli, hearing of June 23, 2009, pages 122 and 126).

The statements by Rosignoli and Ceccarelli show thus how in that period Curatolo frequented the area as indicated by Curatolo himself, and that one by Ceccarelli gives confirmation of Curatolo being in the area of Piazza Grimana on November 2 2007, as reported by Curatolo and that assumes some importance because it is valuable to confirm that the evening when he saw the defendants was precisely November 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Curatolo provides right such an indication: it was "before eleven, eleven and a half, the last time I saw them". It is also possible to further restrict the range on the basis of additional elements. Mr. Curatolo said he remained on the bench until he saw the buses driving young people to a disco and witness Maurizio Rosignoli (see page 131, hearing of 19.6.2009) reported that from Piazza Grimana buses depart to the disco and at a time between 23.00 and 23.30

Contemporaneous reporting had Curatolo saying just before midnight.

Seems somehow they knew when the buses were there, so maybe they stayed open later than you thought.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why do you have to wonder when testimony was given that the police went around with photos of Amanda and Raffaele asking if they had been seen. This is standard police work yet you stick to some bizaar belief that a heroin addict that conjures up what the police want to hear months after the fact trumps what he told the police in the immediate aftermath of the murder.

Perhaps you need to re acquaint yourself with the actual testimony then, the police went around with the photo's to shops that sold bleach, I know of no other testimony that states otherwise.